• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

Rifle Scopes (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

exedotbat

exedotbat

Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Jul 21, 2009
249
0
41
Montville, NJ
I have done some searching and understand why you would want to match your reticle to your knobs.

This is my understanding.

If you see on your reticle you are off 2 moa, you just dial in 2 moa on your scope. Same for mil/mil. No math involved you can quickly make adjustments on the fly.

So is there any reason to go with one or the other <span style="font-weight: bold">if you do not have experience or preference</span> with either one?

Does one have finer adjustment over the other or is it relatively the same?

For example NXS 3.5-15x50 1/4 MOA adjustment with NP-R1 Reticle
Vs. NXS 3.5-15x50 .1 Mil adjustment with MLR reticle.

Is the way you range an object change with moa/moa, vs mil/mil?

Thanks
 
Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

No it doesn't change how you range an object. It changes the math that you need to do to figure out distance. MOA is 1" at 100 yards. 1/4 MOA adjustments are .25" at 100 yards. MIL is 3.6" at 100 yards. 1/10 mil adjustments are .36" at 100 yards.

Very comparable. I have shot both. I like mil/mil when doing the math since its base-10.

YMMV
 
Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

You just use a different formula, based on your reticle type, what dimensions you know the target in, and what you want the distance in (yards or meters).

Formulas are here:

Ranging Formulas

Quarter MOA adjustments move the point of impact 0.262 inches per click at 100 yards. Clicks of 0.1 milliradian move the POI 0.36 inches at 100 yards.
 
Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

How about at true long?
Applying the same math to 1,000 yards 1/4 MOA click is 2.5", where 1/10 MIL click is 3.6". That's about a 30% decrease in potential accuracy.
To be honest, that's not enough difference for me to be concerned about, but maybe for some.
 
Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 9sigman45</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How about at true long?
Applying the same math to 1,000 yards 1/4 MOA click is 2.5", where 1/10 MIL click is 3.6". That's about a 30% decrease in potential accuracy.
To be honest, that's not enough difference for me to be concerned about, but maybe for some. </div></div>

Hogwash!
smile.gif
I understand your thinking, but its not quite how it works in real life. Most mil reticles have subtensions that can be used to compensate if you feel you have not dialed right where you needed to.

Your argument is very valid in benchrest shooting I'm sure... but not as it pertains to tactical shooting.
 
Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: orkan</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 9sigman45</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How about at true long?
Applying the same math to 1,000 yards 1/4 MOA click is 2.5", where 1/10 MIL click is 3.6". That's about a 30% decrease in potential accuracy.
To be honest, that's not enough difference for me to be concerned about, but maybe for some. </div></div>

Hogwash!
smile.gif
I understand your thinking, but its not quite how it works in real life. Most mil reticles have subtensions that can be used to compensate if you feel you have not dialed right where you needed to.

Your argument is very valid in benchrest shooting I'm sure... but not as it pertains to tactical shooting. </div></div>

Can you explain subtensions?
 
Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: orkan</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 9sigman45</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How about at true long?
Applying the same math to 1,000 yards 1/4 MOA click is 2.5", where 1/10 MIL click is 3.6". That's about a 30% decrease in potential accuracy.
To be honest, that's not enough difference for me to be concerned about, but maybe for some. </div></div>

Hogwash!
smile.gif
I understand your thinking, but its not quite how it works in real life. Most mil reticles have subtensions that can be used to compensate if you feel you have not dialed right where you needed to.

Your argument is very valid in benchrest shooting I'm sure... but not as it pertains to tactical shooting. </div></div>

I say hogwash. 1.1" is impossible to differentiate at 1000 yards.
 
Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

This comes up a lot. Not being military, leo or the like, just a hunter I have both
and I like moa moa better. I can handle the math in my head with it and with mil
I can't, a calculator is a must. The normal situations I have needed it in were foggy
and snowing weather where I just couldn't gauge the animal as being 200 or 400
yards. So quick rounded off math was the answer I needed to make the shot.
If I were shooting comps, with a bunch of guys shooting mil mil I would go with
it as their help would be more forthcoming.
 
Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: exedotbat</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
If you see on your reticle you are off 2 moa, you just dial in 2 moa on your scope. Same for mil/mil. No math involved you can quickly make adjustments on the fly.


</div></div>

OP, what you wrote above is ONLY true IF you have a FFP scope OR you are on the specific power setting for your reticle if its an SFP scope. For instance, if you have an SFP scope and you are currently looking through the scope on 18x but your reticle is is set up for 10x, then you cannot use the "off 2 MOA, dial 2 MOA" ROT anymore. You'd have to zoom down to 10x, make your corrections and then zoom back to 18X.
 
Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

I’ve used MOA for so long, lol, it’s second nature, I’ve read all the arguments re Mil, tried the Mil thing, just keep coming back to MOA for;

1) Easy of ranging off items that I know the “inch dimensions of” (e.g., 30” body, takes 6 MOA = 500 yards – 25 for true MOA = 475 = hold 8.5 MOA and you have a HIT, I can “think it” faster than I can “type it”) With TMOA all you have to do is subtract 5 yds for every 100. (That said, I usually just push the button on my Leica Bins, and read the yards)

2) Better scales. I had a S&B Mil reticle with .5 mil hashes, just didn’t care for it at all when “holding”.... the 1 MOA marks (with 10 MOA major divisions) just seem so much easier for both holding and quickly determining how much to dial if I wanted to dial to correct. I usually just hold over for combat/human sized targets....for that, I like that CMGMOA, 40 1 MOA marks.... I can find 23 1/2, 17 3/4, 8 1/4 very fast with that scale. With .5 Mil marks I had what? 16-18 marks to hold with?

My Spotter has a 40 TMOA scale also so that works fine too, if I use a spotter.

All personal preference I guess
 
Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: orkan</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Math is easier for me on mil/mil. </div></div>

A scope thats in "Inch Per Hundard Yards"(IPHY) is the easiest to do, of the three types for me.

24" target subtending 2.75 IPHY in the retical = 872yds
6" target subtending 3.5 IPHY in the retical = 171 yds
Target in inchs / IPHY retical subtention X 100 = yardage to target,... fairly easy to stay within the error range of most weapons
 
Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

Mil'ing is such a small part of anyone's repertoire how you can cite being able to range a target using the scope as a viable benefit seems a bit strange. Especially when they are equally easy given the proper preparation. At most it's about 10% of the intended use, instead there are many other things to consider like: team communication, spotting scopes, reticle choices, turret adjustments and when you put all that together it doesn't add up. Most usually fall back on ranging as if --- but the reality of it is, 98% of them are hanging out by themselves telling themselves what they see. Ya, it works, but in practical application, I have seen more fall flat and when control is taken away from the shooter, like in a competition or even in certain training situations, at the end of the day they usually concede the benefits of going to Mils over MOA.

But that is just my opinion, not like I help moved forward the first MOA reticle from USO or anything, so I'm not sure I qualify to speak on this. If it works for you that is all that counts really, I recommend you look at both in as broad a terms as possible.
 
Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: orkan</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can you explain more bigwheeler?

I think the opposite. Math is easier for me on mil/mil. </div></div>

Height of target in yards x 1000 divided by mils = distance to target

(getting a target into yards involves some pretty involved decimals or
converting to inches which is some tough math without a calculator.
Height of target in inches x 27.78 divided by mils = distance to target.
I guess with a man being 2 yards even it works well for combat.)

Height of target in inches x 100 divided by shooters moa = distance to target.

For true moa it is x 95.5 not x 100, but I just knock off 5% in my head for
a closer quick range measurement. To each our own I guess. I still do most
of my thinking in inches so it is just more natural to me. Like I said, I would
shoot mil/mil if that is what everyone I dealt with shot.

 
Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Doing math in your head is just silly. Get a Mildot Master.
</div></div>

That would be a hoot out hunting. "Wait a minute while I get my glasses, now
let's see.. which pocket is that thing in?" Read all my posts and you'll see I
qualified why I said what I said. lol
 
Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

If you're a hunter, and you're using a reticle for ranging game at extended distances, you have my sympathy, but not my respect.

It would be trivial, though, for hunting to precalculate the ranges of game animals at various sizes in the reticle.

However, this is Sniper's Hide, a site for the serious <span style="font-style: italic">tactical</span> marksman. I'm pretty much unconcerned, to be polite, with what people do when they're hunting - unless they're hunting gunmen.

But you might be a little less blase' about the Mildot Master if you hand a good idea how many targets had been eliminated by military snipers using the MDM.
 
Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

To each their own I guess... but I'm with lowlight.

Mil/Mil is just so damn simple to deal with in every situation... not just ones you are comfortable with. Its one language that covers all the bases... as opposed to one language, that needs to be translated all the time.
wink.gif
 
Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you're a hunter, and you're using a reticle for ranging game at extended distances, you have my sympathy, but not my respect.

It would be trivial, though, for hunting to precalculate the ranges of game animals at various sizes in the reticle.

However, this is Sniper's Hide, a site for the serious <span style="font-style: italic">tactical</span> marksman. I'm pretty much unconcerned, to be polite, with what people do when they're hunting - unless they're hunting gunmen.

But you might be a little less blase' about the Mildot Master if you hand a good idea how many targets had been eliminated by military snipers using the MDM.
</div></div>

Again, you are just to lazy to read the thread. Go look at the ranges I said
I used it for. I don't think the majority of the readers are doing anything more
than punching paper and hunting. I don't know how "serious" that is. And my
respect goes out to all who do depend on their knowledge and skills to stay
alive.
 
Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: adam boynton</div><div class="ubbcode-body">3.6 inches is 1 mil or .36 inches per click, @100 yds. pretty easy math if you ask me </div></div>
fixted
 
Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

Fine, so you are all better at math than me. I'm ok with that.

My brain works better in multiples of 10 than it does in multiples of 3.6, or .36... and case in point... inches don't even come into my head when using mil/mil optics.

I can't look at 542yd target and spot my impact and immediately arrive at an adjustment with my turrets that will put me on. With mils, I can.
 
Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

Fractions with MOA (1/4, 1/2, 3/4, etc in inches) vs decimals with mil (.25,.5,.75. etc in cm). You can learn either system, but I can tell you, even for me having used US standard inches my entire life, the metric system just makes more sense to me.


Kirk R
 
Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KRock459</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-weight: bold">Fractions with MOA (1/4, 1/2, 3/4, etc in inches) vs decimals with mil (.25,.5,.75. etc in cm). </span>You can learn either system, but I can tell you, even for me having used US standard inches my entire life, the metric system just makes more sense to me.

Kirk R </div></div>

I agree
smile.gif


Choosing MOA/MOA is like rowing against the tide of progress:

Decimal is simpler and faster than fractional, and it is exact.
If using a fast calculation (1.0 MOA = 1" at 100 yds), you have a built-in 5% error, and if your scope and reticle are graduated in "inches at 100 yds" you have quite a unique system that is seldom used in ballistic programs.
Few makers offer MOA/MOA, and some don't even know (or are deceptive) if their MOA clicks are true MOA or inches at 100.

Of course you cand use mils + inches/feet/yards, but why stop halfway?

The US military uses mils, and measures in meters for measuring and maps. So does ALL the rest of the world. And meters, being decimal, go hand in hand with mils.

You may say: but all the objects I remember are in inches... but:

learning to measure in meters in easy, come'on, one meter is one yd +10% , and 4" is 0.1 m.

if you are used to the US system, NOT all things are measured in inches: want to know how long a car (or anything lenghty) is? <span style="font-style: italic">it is X feet + Y inches</span>, and you have to "translate" it in inches to use your formulas. Not such a problem with the metric system.
 
Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

It matters little what system one uses, as long as they can use it correctly. I've seen guys give mil calls that even I knew were wrong, and I know nothing about the mil system, nor care to as all of our pack runs MOA or IPHY, with most switching over to IPHY an 1/2 knobs. If I would have started w/mil's it might have been a different story but thats not the case, with me, or most all I shoot with.

Now if I was going back to work with who knows who in uniform it would be different, but I don't believe that will be the case, or 99.9% of the others here. Infact should I ever have to, I'd just reinstall an issue Leatherwood Partner or ART II and worry about the wind only.

Why is there not, this much debate in the Fieldcraft section, it's a lot harder to get there and back than putting lead on target or useing a pushbox? Oh I'm sorry, thats the work part, that gets no glory,...never mind I'll go set in the corner now.
 
Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

Gunfighter, I think the discussion goes on about this because people are looking to learn how to best spend their money. As more manufacturers hop on the matching turret/reticle wagon, the choices become harder.

People that aren't in the "work" side of the shooting discipline want to know what will give them the best chance for success. The hide is one of the only places where they can get an un-bias view of the different systems from actual operators that have used the system to its fullest extent.
 
Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

My favorite at this point is still the IPHY system. I think in inches, it's intuitive and easy.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TiroFijo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
... and if your scope and reticle are graduated in "inches at 100 yds" you have quite a unique system that is seldom used in ballistic programs. ...
</div></div>

The IPHY system is somewhat rare at this point I suppose. USO isn't exactly a small player though, especially on this site, and IPHY is their standard "MOA" system. Yes they have a couple reticles with true MOA, but they seem to be the exception. As for the "seldom used in ballistic programs" part, I don't think that's a valid argument. Ballistic FTE is one of the most popular at this point and it'll spit out IPHY info all day long.

I still say that IPHY makes the most sense for the obvious reason that we know what common objects are, in inches, not in mils, or anything else. I don't need a mil dot master or anything else to do a quick range on a common object. I wish the industry would adopt IPHY as a standard...

... all that said, I pretty much came to the conclusion that isn't going to happen. I just sold my IPHY based USO that was on my LTR, and will be getting something mil / mil to try (probably a NXS 2.5-10x32). The main reason for this was the lack of availability of supporting IPHY based items such as spotting scopes, cheaper scopes suitable for a 22 trainer, etc. It sounds like Vortex will have some MOA / MOA options available with the PST line. However, if they're true MOA then there goes the main advantage to IPHY in my opinion. If you're going to have true MOA then you might as well go mil, because you just lost the main advantage. That discussion (TMOA vs IPHY) made me realize that it's nice to have one standard in the mil system. A mil is a mil is a mil, and any manufacturer (as long as it's set up right) should be compatible.

In the end most of us do our ranging with a laser and not a reticle. In that sense, the fact that the turrets match the reticle is vastly more important in practical usage. As much as I liked the IPHY thing, there just isn't as many compatible products for it (unfortunately). I'm going to give this mil thing a try... if I like it my other IPHY USO will probably go down the road.
 
Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TiroFijo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Choosing MOA/MOA is like rowing against the tide of progress:

Decimal is simpler and faster than fractional, and it is exact.
If using a fast calculation (1.0 MOA = 1" at 100 yds), you have a built-in 5% error, and if your scope and reticle are graduated in "inches at 100 yds" you have quite a unique system that is seldom used in ballistic programs.
Few makers offer MOA/MOA, and some don't even know (or are deceptive) if their MOA clicks are true MOA or inches at 100.

Of course you cand use mils + inches/feet/yards, but why stop halfway?

The US military uses mils, and measures in meters for measuring and maps. So does ALL the rest of the world. And meters, being decimal, go hand in hand with mils.

You may say: but all the objects I remember are in inches... but:

learning to measure in meters in easy, come'on, one meter is one yd +10% , and 4" is 0.1 m.

if you are used to the US system, NOT all things are measured in inches: want to know how long a car (or anything lenghty) is? <span style="font-style: italic">it is X feet + Y inches</span>, and you have to "translate" it in inches to use your formulas. Not such a problem with the metric system. </div></div>

Preach on brother! I try to do as much as I can in my daily and work life in metric. I love shooting on our steel target range that is in meters, I much prefer working with metric socket tools in my garage. "Mmmm, do I need the 10mm wrench or the 11mm wrench"? WAAY easier than thinking in terms of 16/15ths or 3/64ths. Ugghh, my brain melts when I have to do fractions. When I shoot a hellfire missile at a badguy, I do it in meters from the target.

I wish the US would get out of the middle ages and jump on board for the big win.
 
Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: AJBello</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I still say that IPHY makes the most sense <span style="font-weight: bold">for the obvious reason that we know what common objects are, in inches, not in mils, or anything else.</span> I don't need a mil dot master or anything else to do a quick range on a common object. I wish the industry would adopt IPHY as a standard...
</div></div>

Common objects like what? Other than a human, I don't have a clue what any target like a coyote, a deer or whatever is in inches without looking it up and committing it to memory. And if I'm going to have to memorize "common objects" that we might shoot in inches, I can just as easily memorize them in centimeters.
 
Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: orkan</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Gunfighter, I think the discussion goes on about this because people are looking to learn how to best spend their money. As more manufacturers hop on the matching turret/reticle wagon, the choices become harder.

People that aren't in the "work" side of the shooting discipline want to know what will give them the best chance for success. The hide is one of the only places where they can get an un-bias view of the different systems from actual operators that have used the system to its fullest extent. </div></div>
Yes! This is why! I’m a complete nube when it comes to long range shooting. I have read the FAQs and all the sticky when it comes to equipment choices but I’m at a loss when it comes to picking mil/mil or a moa/moa optics. After reading this post I’m still just as confused.

Walt
 
Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ReaperDriver</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Common objects like what?</div></div>

Gear an weapons being the most important, then signs, tracks, tires,... the list is long. Yea I know LRF, but hope is not a plan, I recall a saying from alone time ago,... "One is none, Two is one.
 
Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ReaperDriver</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: AJBello</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I still say that IPHY makes the most sense <span style="font-weight: bold">for the obvious reason that we know what common objects are, in inches, not in mils, or anything else.</span> I don't need a mil dot master or anything else to do a quick range on a common object. I wish the industry would adopt IPHY as a standard...
</div></div>

Common objects like what? Other than a human, I don't have a clue what any target like a coyote, a deer or whatever is in inches without looking it up and committing it to memory. And if I'm going to have to memorize "common objects" that we might shoot in inches, I can just as easily memorize them in centimeters. </div></div>

Like I said, I do my ranging with a laser so it's mostly a moot point. But if the laser were ever to go down and you needed to range...

Standard exterior door in US: 80" high
Standard stop sign: 30" across (10" letters)
Standard US license plate: 12" x 6"
etc

Those are some I knew of the top of my head. Even if I were to estimate a size, my brain would only know how to do that in inches. I have no mental reference for cm's or mils. I could estimate in inches, then convert it, but there's that extra step again. And if I were to start memorizing things for that purpose, I probably wouldn't remember them in cm's as I never use them anywhere else. <span style="font-weight: bold">I say again, it really doesn't matter much because most do ranging with a laser these days.</span> But if we could "reset" the industry standard and start all over, why not go IPHY over mils? Then there's no argument about "a mil is a mil" or "it's what everyone else uses". Practically speaking I think it's easier. Realistically we are where we are and mils are going to dominate it seems... thus my (reluctant) switch.
 
Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

Besides world standarization, anyone that has to make calculations knows that decimal beats fractional hands down. Ask any engineer, machinist, carpenter, chemist, architect, scientist, etc.

The only thing that IPHY has for it is "I'm familiar with inches and yards", everything else is downsides in using fractional inches/feet/yards instead of all decimal meters for distance calculations:

for example a car is 13 feet + 11" = 13 x12 + 11 = 167" for your IPHY calculations, vs the car is 4.24 m and you just use this number

spotter says: "its 2.8 IPHY up, mate", and you calculate 2.8 x 4 = 11.2 1/4" clicks --> dial 11 clicks, rather than "its 0.8 mil up" and you automatically dial 8 0.1 mil clicks

And it IS a fringe system, nearly all makers use MOA, even USO is not very clear about their MOA vs IPHY status (are the reticles and clicks both true MOA or IPHY, or a mix?), and how many scopes do they sell a year? How many IPHY scopes sold to military or police units (USO has no contracts with both), vs hobby shooters?

Converting is not so difficult, and then everything is decimal. One inch = 2.5 cm = 0.025 m , it is unlike anyone will forget this, and in any case most of the "familiar objects sizes" are kept on a piece of paper anyway:

Standard exterior door in US: 80" high = 2.0 m
it is 2.05-2.10 m in most of the rest of the world

Standard stop sign: 30" across (10" letters) = 0.75 m across, 0.25 m letters
this varies a lot from country to country

Standard US license plate: 12" x 6" = 0.30 x 0.15 m
varies a lot from country to country

The "reset" button should be to meters + international units
smile.gif
 
Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TiroFijo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...
The only thing that IPHY has for it is "I'm familiar with inches and yards"
... </div></div>

Yep, and that pretty much trumps everything else in practical terms. Centimeters, or mils, have NO TANGIBLE VALUE for me. I would bet most US shooters are the same. Mils are fine for dialing what you see but ranging something will always require an additional step over IPHY for US shooters who know and think in inches. I don't think there's any way around that...?

I would like to snap my fingers and think in / know the metric system, along with the rest of the US, but that just ain't gonna happen. Just like IPHY overtaking mils in long range shooting isn't going to happen. Which is why I am going to try mils... but I STILL say IPHY is simpler, for US shooters, that know inches (90% of the people on here maybe?).
 
Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

Back to ranging.... the old fallback argument.

I live in the US, i grew up with inches, and yet Mils are so much easier, heck without looking I don't even know wind calls in Inches or MOA, I have to convert, but I know what wind I need in Mils from 0 to 1000 yards with a 308 off the top of my head. Why because I bothered to learn it.

It's easy enough and can be learned in no time flat, even memorized easier than IPHY or MOA, as the numbers are much smaller and more manageable.

Knowing the size of an object in inches is not an issue, I use a cheatsheet so I don't even use a Mil Dot Master, I use this:
mil-chart.jpg


No math, no conversions, no nothing... problem solved and I move on.
 
Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

When I read about group size, why is it always,... I shot "X" inchs at "Y" yardage, or it shoots MOA or better?

 
Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

Custom cheat-sheet or a mil-dot master, it's still an extra step.

Mind you I'm not arguing in favor of the IPHY system given where we're at. I'm simply saying that as far as ranging is concerned it's simpler for "inch thinkers". Like you said in your first post in this thread, that's a very small part of what we really do with a riflescope, and I agree. Commonality and availability of a wider range of mil products are why I'm switching.
 
Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When I read about group size, why is it always,... I shot "X" inchs at "Y" yardage, or it shoots MOA or better?

</div></div>

ya, what does that have to do with the scope... it can easily be a .1 mil group.

I have to admit, that is seriously weak in terms of this conversation, lame is being generous.
 
Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When I read about group size, why is it always,... I shot "X" inchs at "Y" yardage, or it shoots MOA or better?

</div></div>

ya, what does that have to do with the scope... it can easily be a .1 mil group.

I have to admit, that is seriously weak in terms of this conversation, lame is being generous. </div></div>

The point is, most are thinking in MOA or IPHY already
 
Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

I fail to see how metric vs inches enters into things but I guess a metric reticle
could be made to confuse the newbies even more. Lowlight, the chart is the
perfect answer. I already have a drop chart taped to my stock, so adding one
of these in iphy will work like a champ. Just never put the thought into it.
 
Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Back to ranging.... the old fallback argument.

I live in the US, i grew up with inches, and yet Mils are so much easier, heck without looking I don't even know wind calls in Inches or MOA, I have to convert, but I know what wind I need in Mils from 0 to 1000 yards with a 308 off the top of my head. Why because I bothered to learn it.

It's easy enough and can be learned in no time flat, even memorized easier than IPHY or MOA, as the numbers are much smaller and more manageable.

Knowing the size of an object in inches is not an issue, I use a cheatsheet so I don't even use a Mil Dot Master, I use this:
mil-chart.jpg


No math, no conversions, no nothing... problem solved and I move on.
</div></div>
cool cheat sheet! can I steal it?
 
Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

This time tomorrow I will be fully converted on my rifles from moa/moa to mil/mil. Not because I prefer mil/mil, but because I can communicate better at matches running mil-radian.
 
Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When I read about group size, why is it always,... I shot "X" inchs at "Y" yardage, or it shoots MOA or better?

</div></div>

ya, what does that have to do with the scope... it can easily be a .1 mil group.

I have to admit, that is seriously weak in terms of this conversation, lame is being generous. </div></div>

The point is, most are thinking in MOA or IPHY already</div></div>

I personally avoid shooting groups like the plague and can careless what it is... I do it because people expect it in stuff like the videos, but I never put a real number on it... I don't "measure" my groups, ever... so again, if you're into that, have at it, but this is not Bench Rest Central and groups aren't the answer, that first shot is... and I know what size that is... .30

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

LC 6.5 Shooter
Rifle Scopes Dialing in MOA question. Only own mil scopes
Replies
3
Views
206
Mike Casselton
Mike Casselton
C
Optics Nightforce NXS 5.5-22x56 MOA Mil-dot
Replies
1
Views
389
cornhusker100
C
I
Rifle Scopes How difficult would it be for two noviceish long-range shooters to have an MOA and a MIL scope?
Replies
30
Views
861
45-90
4
B
Optics WTS: Nightforce NXS 2.5-10x24 Recon Army Spec Marked
Replies
2
Views
828
Bchico14
B
Habu64
SOLD NX8 4-32 Mil-XT
Replies
1
Views
360
Habu64
Habu64
Top Bottom
Back